Philosophy Now Forum

marjoram_blues wrote:

Jaded Sage wrote:This is more of an ethical question, I suppose, but what do you think of this: suppose there is a terroristic threat, and suppose that terroristic threat comes in the guise, authentic or inauthentic, of a religion and people. Suppose the correct thing is to have a population that views that religion and people in such a way that renders them safe. Suppose also that many presumably cannot achieve this view without also viewing that religion and people through prejudiced hatred and intolerance, or—and I believe this is more likely—that producing in them a view that is prejudiced with hatred and intolerance is the most efficient means of producing a view in them that keeps them safe. Is it right to instill such a view, even if it means manipulation? Or should we first attempt some other strategy?

Hi JS
I am sorry but you are going to have run that by me once again. I'm not sure what you are getting at but I'd like to give it a go.

Let me put it like this: I know some people who, after listening to certain people, have developed what I believe to be a prejudiced view of Islam. Now, these people also happen to be the most adamant about what might turn out to be the right call concerning interaction with muslims as far as safety goes. Assuming they do, were the people who gave them this prejudiced yet saftety-ensuring view morally right to do so, or should we as a people have tried to achieve that same goal without instilling prejudice in the people?

marjoram_blues wrote: So, not just about the theoretical question of God's existence and nature.

marjoram_blues wrote: HC: So what is SHE like?

Ah, mon petit choux. Charles Aznavour sings her so sublimely divinely.

Here’s an easy video about the feminine energy that non-conceptually attracts and balances men, and the masculine energy that non-conceptually attracts and balances women.

And how it all balances out in the natural, non-conceptual energetic balancing movement of … Life!

The hidden meanings of yin and yang - John Bellaimey
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ezmR9Attpyc

Walker wrote:

marjoram_blues wrote: So, not just about the theoretical question of God's existence and nature.

marjoram_blues wrote: HC: So what is SHE like?

Ah, mon petit choux. Charles Aznavour sings her so sublimely divinely.

Here’s an easy video about the feminine energy that non-conceptually attracts and balances men, and the masculine energy that non-conceptually attracts and balances women.

And how it all balances out in the natural, non-conceptual energetic balancing movement of … Life!

The hidden meanings of yin and yang - John Bellaimey
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ezmR9Attpyc

Hello Walker
I looked into Daoism a while back and it is certainly an interesting way to go. However, there was something which didn't sit easily with me. I may have to retrace my steps. Can I flow back up river?

An explanation from the video:

The ubiquitous yin-yang symbol holds its roots in Taoism/Daoism, a Chinese religion and philosophy. The yin, the dark swirl, is associated with shadows, femininity, and the trough of a wave; the yang, the light swirl, represents brightness, passion and growth. John Bellaimey explains why we all contain the spirit of yin and of yang -- and how we can achieve a balance of both in our lives.

Males may contain the seed of the spirit of yin (''femininity') and females may contain the seed of the spirit of yang ( masculinity) [? is there a difference between 'femininity' and femaleness] So, in the video Darth Vader is in the black area, the shadows, which is the female side? It seems to me that this equates females with darkness/badness with a hint of good. I don't like the stark black/whiteness of it all. Tints of grey need not apply.

And re my starting point, I wonder just how much this affects the attitude towards women in Chinese culture. Or did it stem from their way of hierarchy, women being subordinate. It is not as 'equal' , or balanced as the symbol seems to imply.

Thanks for giving me room to ponder - and despite my poo-poohing of the She question, I am beginning to see its significance. In religious/cultural terms.

Unfortunately, I have been advised to limit my screen time for a while, so can't really flow on with how Daoism works.

Jaded Sage wrote: Let me put it like this: I know some people who, after listening to certain people, have developed what I believe to be a prejudiced view of Islam. Now, these people also happen to be the most adamant about what might turn out to be the right call concerning interaction with muslims as far as safety goes. Assuming they do, were the people who gave them this prejudiced yet saftety-ensuring view morally right to do so, or should we as a people have tried to achieve that same goal without instilling prejudice in the people

So, you know 'some people' ( group A) have developed a prejudiced - I presume you mean anti-Islam - stance after listening to 'some other people' (group B)
The latter have a strong opinion ( X ) - a potentially correct/effective solution concerning security surrounding being with muslims. Have I got that right?

Next, you describe group B as jumping from from X to Y ( having a 'safety-ensuring' view ). I doubt that there is such a thing as 'safety-ensuring'. Group B seem a little scatter-brained, and dogmatic. Group A probably a little bit silly if they accept this view without questioning.
However, your 'instilling prejudice' suggests that the situation is a little more sinister. I think more specifics about the nature of group B are required before any judgement, or conclusions can be reached re morality.

I am totally lost with your 'we as a people should...'
How did you personally react and respond to the people you know?

Anyway - I'm having to take a short break from screen time. perhaps others might want to engage with this. Catch you later...

Hobbes' Choice wrote:

marjoram_blues wrote:HC: So what is SHE like?

Ah, mon petit choux. Charles Aznavour sings her so sublimely divinely.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O040xuq2FR0

E Costello not too bad either.
Does that mean you've given up on God?

Or so you regard Charles Aznavour as divine?

Yeah, Costello is good but there is something about the French accent. A je ne sais quoi. Quality.
And my original point was that continually talking about 'whether or not God exists and its nature' is getting rather stale. I avoided Phil of Religion for so long because of this eternal focus. Recent events in Paris and discussions re ISIS and 'what to do?' have sparked an interest in the what and the why of it all. However, philosophy frustrates me and I may look further into the wider questions of psychology, and other disciplines. Eyesight and footwork permitting.

marjoram_blues wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote:

marjoram_blues wrote:HC: So what is SHE like?

Ah, mon petit choux. Charles Aznavour sings her so sublimely divinely.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O040xuq2FR0

E Costello not too bad either.
Does that mean you've given up on God?

Or so you regard Charles Aznavour as divine?

Yeah, Costello is good but there is something about the French accent. A je ne sais quoi. Quality.
And my original point was that continually talking about 'whether or not God exists and its nature' is getting rather stale. I avoided Phil of Religion for so long because of this eternal focus. Recent events in Paris and discussions re ISIS and 'what to do?' have sparked an interest in the what and the why of it all. However, philosophy frustrates me and I may look further into the wider questions of psychology, and other disciplines. Eyesight and footwork permitting.

I do not think there are any easy answers.
All I can do is respond with reason. Atrocities are committed by people with a strong sense of belief. You can ONLY respond by teaching the world that 'belief' is not truth, it's wishfulness.
I believe that all should be treated equally. I know this is not the truth, but an aspiration. There is no confusion here. But when religion is taught, it is a system of lies. There is not other way to describe it. Things that cannot be known to be truth, and other things that are simply aspirations are asserted as the plain truth. This is a horror. There is no excuse for it.